MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Joborule

That area is interesting to me in how they haven't formally changed future plans for the West LRT line to either have its future Aspen Woods station relocated closer to this development, or simply add it inbetween.

This would actually be a practical location for TOD development since the station would be inbetween all of this density, and a shopping centre across the street.

Bananas if they skip this opportunity, and expect people to walk there from west of 85th street, or use buses from a nearby train station.

Well that’s the interesting thing about the push for TOD; there are a lot of good locations near the existing train lines. Maxbell, Anderson, Heritage, Shawnessy (which is coming along), Franklin and probably others I’m not thinking of. Even for the future residents those are better in terms of access than what’s being planned at Glenmore Landing.

[Roughneck]

People getting excited for 3,000 more people for a BRT route is understandable. 30,000 people for a Shawnessy TOD also makes sense.

Anything else is just NIMBY nonsense that doesn’t deserve the time of day.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

People getting excited for 3,000 more people for a BRT route is understandable. 30,000 people for a Shawnessy TOD also makes sense.

Anything else is just NIMBY nonsense that doesn’t deserve the time of day.

No. Density for the sake of density is not good policy. If the infrastructure and communities can’t support it, it’s just bad planning.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

In a little bit of YYC news, the community consultation for Rio Can is today for the Glenmore Landing Redevelopment. It's basically a done deal, and they're going to have this skate through so that the session isn't really to provide feedback that will change that, but to say "well we heard you and we listened." To that end they have decreased some of the proposed building heights.

That's the classic game in this city. Go in with something 10% higher than you actually want then make a big goodwill gesture of giving back to show you listened. Meanwhile the relaxations you really wanted sail under the radar.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Slava

No. Density for the sake of density is not good policy. If the infrastructure and communities can’t support it, it’s just bad planning.

90th Ave gets less traffic than Elbow Drive despite being a bigger capacity road. Even if 3000 people equates to 3000 more cars daily, it will still be in the range of roads like Elbow Drive or Richmond Road despite being a better built road already, and it has room to expand. Not liking that there will be more traffic doesn't equate to infrastructure not being able to support it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

90th Ave gets less traffic than Elbow Drive despite being a bigger capacity road. Even if 3000 people equates to 3000 more cars daily, it will still be in the range of roads like Elbow Drive or Richmond Road despite being a better built road already, and it has room to expand. Not liking that there will be more traffic doesn't equate to infrastructure not being able to support it.

No, you can’t just make more ways in and out of Glenmore Landing, and you can’t just redo the intersection there (again). Once cars get onto 90th they could go west, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that corner, the 16th/Jerusalem and 90th intersection (which is the only way to turn east) and that’s not solvable. Have a look at the plans and you can see that clear as day.

And yeah, there are bigger roads handling more traffic. That’s great, and irrelevant. Those roads are bout that way because people use them as significant arteries, which isn’t the case for 90th.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, you can’t just make more ways in and out of Glenmore Landing, and you can’t just redo the intersection there (again). Once cars get onto 90th they could go west, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that corner, the 16th/Jerusalem and 90th intersection (which is the only way to turn east) and that’s not solvable. Have a look at the plans and you can see that clear as day.

And yeah, there are bigger roads handling more traffic. That’s great, and irrelevant. Those roads are bout that way because people use them as significant arteries, which isn’t the case for 90th.

They could give SB-EB an advanced green turn arrow. Which would mean a modest increase to the whole light cycle time. And then Jesus wept.

And if that's not enough they could make it a dual left (and let WB exiters realize that the other exit is better).

And it's not like all 3000 will parachute in at once. The amazing thing about road systems is that they actually do balance themselves out as edge cases seek the path of least resistance. Some people might even try taking the bus instead!

I would also think that the main impact of resident traffic would be trying to exit on weekday mornings - before anyone else is really trying to leave the shopping complex. Saturday afternoons will continue to suck and maybe suck a bit more. A few weekend hours is hardly reason to quash a development.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, you can’t just make more ways in and out of Glenmore Landing, and you can’t just redo the intersection there (again). Once cars get onto 90th they could go west, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that corner, the 16th/Jerusalem and 90th intersection (which is the only way to turn east) and that’s not solvable. Have a look at the plans and you can see that clear as day.

And yeah, there are bigger roads handling more traffic. That’s great, and irrelevant. Those roads are bout that way because people use them as significant arteries, which isn’t the case for 90th.

They really need a single lane road, northbound only, that goes from the north end of the development, parallel to the BRT lane and up to Heritage Drive. This would alleviate madness of everyone going out to 90th trying to get east/north via 14th in conflict with all those entering the development from the west/south.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, you can’t just make more ways in and out of Glenmore Landing, and you can’t just redo the intersection there (again). Once cars get onto 90th they could go west, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that corner, the 16th/Jerusalem and 90th intersection (which is the only way to turn east) and that’s not solvable. Have a look at the plans and you can see that clear as day.

Again, not liking that an exit might take an extra light cycle does not equate to infrastructure not being able to support development. It just means you don't like things becoming less convenient, which is understandable, but shouldn't drive development decisions.

And yeah, there are bigger roads handling more traffic. That’s great, and irrelevant. Those roads are bout that way because people use them as significant arteries, which isn’t the case for 90th.

You have it backwards. 90th was built as a major arterial. A divided four lane road with left turn lanes is more than the likes of Elbow and Richmond Road have at their busiest points. The only reason people didn't use it as one is because it took 50 years to build the SW Ring Road. 90th Ave has been underutilized from it's design spec since it was built.

[Wormius]

Somebody should mock this up in Cities: Skylines and see if this is really a valid concern.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

They could give SB-EB an advanced green turn arrow. Which would mean a modest increase to the whole light cycle time. And then Jesus wept.

And if that's not enough they could make it a dual left (and let WB exiters realize that the other exit is better).

And it's not like all 3000 will parachute in at once. The amazing thing about road systems is that they actually do balance themselves out as edge cases seek the path of least resistance. Some people might even try taking the bus instead!

I would also think that the main impact of resident traffic would be trying to exit on weekday mornings - before anyone else is really trying to leave the shopping complex. Saturday afternoons will continue to suck and maybe suck a bit more. A few weekend hours is hardly reason to quash a development.

Sure, but it’s not just that. Amusingly, as I headed home from the Rio Can session yesterday and turned onto 90th, the turn into Glenmore Landing was backed up. This just illustrates the issue with the area as it is; Glenmore Landing does need to be redeveloped and there are traffic flow issues as it stands. I’m not an expert in these matters, but you what won’t fix this? 3000 more people, and say 1000 more vehicles.

It’s pretty evident that people who actually use Glenmore Landing today, are totally against this. It’s because we all see the current situation and this is just going to exacerbate the issues. I actually think the redevelopment is awesome, just not the six towers of people portion.

But I know we’re going to be stuck with this, and that’s why I went to the session (to see what we’re in for). I’ll just avoid that area like the plague because it’s going to be unusable.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

They really need a single lane road, northbound only, that goes from the north end of the development, parallel to the BRT lane and up to Heritage Drive. This would alleviate madness of everyone going out to 90th trying to get east/north via 14th in conflict with all those entering the development from the west/south.

A road in and out of that development to the intersection at Heritage would be very smart but there is a natural area in the way with grass and trees so there is no way that idea would ever pan out.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, but it’s not just that. Amusingly, as I headed home from the Rio Can session yesterday and turned onto 90th, the turn into Glenmore Landing was backed up. This just illustrates the issue with the area as it is; Glenmore Landing does need to be redeveloped and there are traffic flow issues as it stands. I’m not an expert in these matters, but you what won’t fix this? 3000 more people, and say 1000 more vehicles.

It’s pretty evident that people who actually use Glenmore Landing today, are totally against this. It’s because we all see the current situation and this is just going to exacerbate the issues. I actually think the redevelopment is awesome, just not the six towers of people portion.

But I know we’re going to be stuck with this, and that’s why I went to the session (to see what we’re in for). I’ll just avoid that area like the plague because it’s going to be unusable.

Densification near a BRT sounds great in theory. But as you say, you need to look at the details.

Glenmore Landing is already extremely busy. And not just at rush hour - go there at 11 am on a Tuesday and the traffic is a ####show. It can only be accessed from one side, because the other three sides are blocked by Glenmore Park and the BRT. The only side that’s accessible to traffic has two right-lane turns in, and one set of lights out. I haven’t seen the plans, but I don’t know how they’ll increase capacity in and out of the development.

And any notion that because it’s on a BRT the residents will use transit most of the time is delusional. The big commercial and restaurant zone nearby is Macleod Trail, and the BRT doesn’t go to Macleod Trail. Residents aren’t going to take the BRT to Heritage Dr, then a bus to Heritage Station, then the C-Train to go shop at Chinook or eat the Keg. So most of the residents will have cars and they’ll drive those cars. Go to Glenmore Landing today and imagine it with 1,000 more vehicles using it on a daily or near-daily basis.

A much more sensible densification project is the one being developed at the Oakridge Co-op. The site has access from three sides, and the development will add three new mid-rise residential complexes totalling 250 units. Unsurprisingly, there was little to no community opposition.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A much more sensible densification project is the one being developed at the Oakridge Co-op. The site has access from three sides, and the development will add three new low-rise residential complexes totalling 250 units. Unsurprisingly, there was little to no community opposition.

Except there was plenty of community opposition. That's why it's a 250 unit development and not the 450 unit proposal.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Except there was plenty of community opposition. That's why it's a 250 unit development and not the 450 unit proposal.

Well that’s the first I heard of opposition, and I live in the neighbourhood and talk with neighbours about the redevelopment regularly. Whatever opposition there was certainly didn’t have the profile of what’s currently going on with Glenmore Landing.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Whatever opposition there was certainly didn’t have the profile of what’s currently going on with Glenmore Landing.

I'm sure your mind will be blown when you do a venn diagram of the people who vocally opposed the SWBRT and the people who vocally oppose the Glenmore Landing redevelopment.

I bet they're crying in their mercedes every day as they drive by the hell-infested bus-only lanes.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Densification near a BRT sounds great in theory. But as you say, you need to look at the details.

Glenmore Landing is already extremely busy. And not just at rush hour - go there at 11 am on a Tuesday and the traffic is a ####show. It can only be accessed from one side, because the other three sides are blocked by Glenmore Park and the BRT. The only side that’s accessible to traffic has two right-lane turns in, and one set of lights out. I haven’t seen the plans, but I don’t know how they’ll increase capacity in and out of the development.

And any notion that because it’s on a BRT the residents will use transit most of the time is delusional. The big commercial and restaurant zone nearby is Macleod Trail, and the BRT doesn’t go to Macleod Trail. Residents aren’t going to take the BRT to Heritage Dr, then a bus to Heritage Station, then the C-Train to go shop at Chinook or eat the Keg. So most of the residents will have cars and they’ll drive those cars. Go to Glenmore Landing today and imagine it with 1,000 more vehicles using it on a daily or near-daily basis.

A much more sensible densification project is the one being developed at the Oakridge Co-op. The site has access from three sides, and the development will add three new mid-rise residential complexes totalling 250 units. Unsurprisingly, there was little to no community opposition.

This is exactly it. It's not that everyone is against density. We have these things there, and plans for more in the coming years aside from Glenmore Landing. The JCC has plans, the Coop development and that's on top of the towers across 90th and the townhouses there as well. It's understandable.

But you can be fine with density and still be against a particular project because it's not sensible. It's easy to paint people opposed to this as NIMBY's, but it's just not the case.

I went to the engagement thing and told them that I think that the redevelopment itself looks great. I'm in favour of Glenmore Landing being redeveloped and redesigned, just without the 6 towers. No one aside from RioCan who actually uses that place or travels near there regularly could see the current problems associated and think "you what would help here? 3000 more people."

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I'm sure your mind will be blown when you do a venn diagram of the people who vocally opposed the SWBRT and the people who vocally oppose the Glenmore Landing redevelopment.

I bet they're crying in their mercedes every day as they drive by the hell-infested bus-only lanes.

Oh I get it, people have money in some of these communities, so this is a "stick to those people" project as opposed to what actually makes sense. Is there ridership for the SWBRT somewhere? That bus stop at Glenmore Landing is a ghost town (anecdotally).

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Slava

That bus stop at Glenmore Landing is a ghost town (anecdotally).

Probably because there aren't any residences anywhere near Glenmore Landing. I know what could fix that...

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Slava

Oh I get it, people have money in some of these communities, so this is a "stick to those people" project as opposed to what actually makes sense. Is there ridership for the SWBRT somewhere? That bus stop at Glenmore Landing is a ghost town (anecdotally).

The Mercedes reference that Mazrim is making is from the 2016 "sky is falling because buses" saga. It was widely mocked as old, rich, nimby-ism and didn't help make the opponents appear relatable, informed, or reasonable.

City transportation spokesman Sean Somers, who at one point during the meeting was yelled and sworn at by an older man who said people along the southwest route won't use public transit because they can afford to drive Mercedes-Benz vehicles, acknowledged the mood of the crowd was, at times, hostile.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ting-1.3461754